Off topic. If you have an issue with moderation, PM me. - Certis
I think you can only really draw a great generalities about how people caucus in matters of social policy in a very general way, and in particular, a lot of what happens and is common in America is too often seen by Americans as applicable to everyone. For instance, being an agnostic theist apparently is rare in America, but I know many such of my acquaintance in the Philippines. As a local priest would say, "If we could prove that God exists, then we would not need to have faith in His existence."
That is, if God could be proven logically or scientifically, then believing in Him would no longer be a matter of faith, but simply a matter of sanity.
I think that in a multicultural country that honestly is trying to accommodate all its beliefs, it is incumbent upon the citizens of that country not to put matters of their own personal religion or faith in law or as common government policy. That is, if you don't really believe in theocracy, then stop basing legislating only on the articles of one or a few faiths, to the detriment of your own countrymen.
And if you do? Migrate to the Vatican.
Also, any topics you guys want to share regarding Catholicism, I would be very happy to answer for you. Want to know the traditions of the Catholic Church but are afraid to ask, ask me.
Thanks for this thread darrenl. My question is why does the Roman Catholic church still refuse to let women enter the priesthood?
And for disclosure I am a life long protestant (Methodist) who did pretty much usual the "drift away from the faith when I entered college" thing. Drifted back about 13 years ago when I was in my early 30's.
Last historical book I read on Christianity was Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
darrennl - Why do you buy into every apologist creed? You should know that the laity is as important as the hierarchy. Meaning their wishes and conscience means as much as what the Popes and Bishops cite as true. In our day and time there is a belief there is nothing immoral about women being priests. So it comes down to what is interpreted. What if the interpretation is wrong? For me that symbolism is an artifact of medieval times and has nothing to do with our spiritual growth now.
Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A recent Focus On The Family podcast featured an interview with a fellow who had written a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Very much piqued my interest, both in that biography, and in anything Bonhoeffer had written. I'll look up the title of the bio on my lunch break.
Darren, +1 to your comment about women playing a huge role in the Church. My mom would often leave my sister and I with Sister Jo while she went shopping, and I credit Sister Jo with first explaining what is necessary for salvation to me in a way I could understand.
Edit: Found the title of that Bonhoeffer bio..."Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas.
Edit edit: Well, that Amazon link doesn't seem to be working.
Let me know if you need followup or have any other questions.
Thank you darrenl, you covered it quite nicely.
I guess you have to chalk this one up to one of the primary differences between Catholics and Protestants, most whom are firm adherents to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.
Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.
Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?
goman wrote:Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.
Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?
Regarding your question on Magistrate...because I wish to present the most accurate position of the Catholic Church (..and Theism in general...), as well as provide links, resources and other places where others can go to find them should they either want to dig further on their own or double check my understanding of the issue in question.
Do I have other opinions on other things? Yes.
That is not the most accurate position. The Church is the people, not the written rules.
To cross the two discussions, there was an event in Pittsburgh a few years back where some Catholics decided that no women priests was archaic, and had an ordination. The Bishop shortly thereafter issued a blanket excommunication of all of the women, any priest that participated, and anyone in attendance. Up until that point, I had no idea they could just excommunicate in absentia and without a specific... Target? That's not the right word but it's the only one I can think of.
goman:
I think that if you want to make any sense of how something in the Catholic Church is decided, you have to understand how the Catholic Church defies itself, rather than how you prefer to think of it.
The Church is both the clergy and the laypeople, but I've never had the impression that it was a democratic affair.
I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.
I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.
I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.
NSMike wrote:I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.
I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.
I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.
I would think a true statesmen would say, "Yes, I'm Catholic. If you don't like it, then I will thank God that you didn't vote for me"...and then see what happens.
Looks like we're pretty close. Stick to your convictions or get out of the way.
We are pretty close, but I happen to think that there isn't really a religion out there whose tenets have the best interests of society at large at heart. To put it harshly, religions are generally selfish to their own causes. To serve in public office, where you're meant to represent a diverse selection of citizens, you have to consider the positions of your constituency as a whole. If that constituency's opinions happen to override your own, or that of your church, you have a duty to represent your constituency (barring, of course, that your constituency is advocating for something that is clearly a human rights violation). This is a fairly far-fetched ideal, but it would still be very nice.
Well, the context is religious in this thread so that's how I framed the original idea. Of course it would apply to non-religious contexts, like corporate interests, lobbying, etc.
I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.
I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.
I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.
I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.
I am not Theologian and I am certainly not an apologist. But I do know there are many theologians, including priests in good standing, that take a more nuanced version of the Magistrate. Who if it wasn't for these people's arguments, I would not consider myself Catholic. I just cannot in good conscience believe the apologist's arguments if they go against what I believe what Jesus was preaching.
Jesus never said "Women cannot be leaders/priests/elders/popes of the Church" He said Peter should start the Church. The Church has interpreted this wrong in my opinion and is now dismissing a lot of laity wishes in this regard. Excommunication should be taken out of the Catholic Church lexicon. Jesus did not preach this either. He in fact preached the opposite.
NSMike wrote:I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.
I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.
I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.
I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.
In which case, he needs to leave office. Because if he doesn't believe that government should be used to "force" things on people, he's a freaking anarchist.
CheezePavilion wrote:NSMike wrote:I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.
I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.
I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.
I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.
In which case, he needs to leave office. Because if he doesn't believe that government should be used to "force" things on people, he's a freaking anarchist.
I only mean forcing people to agree with them on the specific issue of that religious value. Maybe an example will help.
We've got freedom of religion in this country. There are politicians who believe their religion is the only correct one. Does that mean all those politicians have a conflict between their religion and their duty to their nation?
Not necessarily: unless their religion also preaches its members should use all the power they have--like any office they are elected into--to get people to agree theirs is the one true religion, there is no conflict. If their religious conviction is "my way is the right way, but I can only use non-violent persuasion to convince you" there's no conflict.
In which case, to bring this circle back around, it's up to the authority of his particular religion to decide what to do with him, officially. Catholics are really the only ones who exercise that kind of authority, though.
Pages